TRANS UNION LLC,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

The facts in all these appeals are identical except for the figures disputed under each of these appeals. Accordingly these appeals were heard together and disposed off through this common order.

The assessee is a company incorporated in United States of America (USA) and is a tax resident of USA. The assessee is part of the group i.e. engaged in the business of providing credit information and information management services. The assessee also provides data / insights and information to health consumers and businesses make informed decisions. The income of the assessee included consideration received towards licensing of software, provision of software development services, provision of software support services, etc. to its AEs in India. The total receipts of the assessee for the years under consideration included receipts from software licensing charges from its Indian AEs as tabulated below – S. No Nature of software Receipts during the year (in INR) AY 2016-17 AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 AY 2019-20 1 iCRS platform - 8,26,88,104 10,28,83,694 10,46,01,496 2 Adviser platform - 1,65,55,352 3 Risk Scoring - 31,34,50,000 - - 4 Decision center 12,12,15,182 3,98,34,211 2,31,24,927 6,24,52,643

1 The factual matrix is that the Appellant filed its return of income and at that time had voluntarily offered the receipts from the software licenses to tax. The return was processed by the CPC and intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was issued.

2 The Appellant applied for online rectification of the 143(1) intimation and orders under section 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act was passed (latest one dated 20.03.2019). It is against this order that the Appellant filed a rectification application under section 154 before the AO [on account of pronouncement of the decision of the Apex Court in Engineering Analysis (supra)] and made a claim for the refund. 6.3 From the above, it is undisputed that the Appellant had not claimed the corresponding refund arising from the taxes paid on the software license receipts while filing its return of income. Further, the Appellant also failed to invoke the statutory appeal remedy against the 143(1) intimations.

4 And having failed to do so, the Appellant cannot use the rectification route as a backdoor entry to have time beyond filing of a return/ revised returns for claiming such refunds. This is not the intent of the law.

5 Further, the decision of the Apex Court is required to be analyzed through a lens to come to a conclusion on the merits of the issue. Hence, where such analysis is yet to be undertaken by the AO for the Appellant at that time, there is no scope for rectification of such order since there is nothing erroneous which is apparent.

6 In view of the above, I reject the contentions of the Appellant and confirm the observations of the AO. Therefore, Ground Nos 1 to 5 raised by the Appellant are dismissed.

7 Given that the issue of validity of the rectification application itself is answered in negative for the Appellant, I am not adjudicating the issue on its merits. This order shall not be construed as an order on the merits of the case. Hence Ground No. raised by the Appellant is dismissed in-limine.

8. Ground nos 7 and 8 are general in nature hence they are dismissed.”

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR at the outset submitted that the receipts towards software licence by the assessee are not taxable in India as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra). The ld. AR further submitted that the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be treated as a mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 154 of the Act and in this regard drew our attention to Circular No. 68 (F.NO. 245/17/71-A&PAC) dated 17.11.1971. The extract of the Circular is as under: “SECTION 154 . RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES

Mistakes apparent from records - Whether can be treated as such on the basis of subsequent decision of Supreme Court

The Board are advised that a mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute "a mistake apparent from the records" and rectificatory action under section 35/154 of the 1922 Act/the 1961 Act would be in order. It has, therefore, been decided that where as assessee moves an application under section 154 pointing out that in the light of a later decision of the Supreme Court pronouncing the correct legal position, a mistake has occurred in any of the completed assessments in his case, the application shall be acted upon, provided the same has been filed within time and is otherwise in order. Where any such applications have already been rejected and the assessee files fresh applications within the statutory time limit, the same may also be treated on par with the applications which may either be pending or received after the issue of this circular.

The Board desire that any appeals or references pending on the point at issue may please be withdrawn.

Accordingly, the ld. AR argued that the revenue is bound by the above Circular and therefore the lower authorities are not right in rejecting the claim of the assessee. The ld AR made a detailed written submission raising the following contentions – a. Binding and retrospective nature of applicability of a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court – The Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Engineering Analysis (supra) is binding in nature and applicable retrospectively and constitutes mistake apparent from record b. Assessment Order/ intimation not in line with subsequent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court constitute a mistake apparent from record which is amenable by way of rectification – The CBDT Circular are binding on the tax authorities and therefore the learned AO/ CIT(A) ought to have accepted the rectification application filed by the assessee c. Subsequent Supreme Court decision is akin Retrospective amendment in Act and both applicable retrospectively and thus, rectification of order in such cases is valid - Applying similar analogy to decision of subsequent supreme court, it is clear that it will operate from retrospective date and it has to be given effect even though it is not available at the time of passing of order and thereby appeal of the Assessee should be allowed. d. Mistake apparent from record includes taxpayer’s own mistake (whether of law of fact) which is required to be rectified - The Appellant had offered on conservative basis the software receipts to tax. However, based on the subsequent Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Engineering Analysis (supra) the Appellant has filed rectification application since it is mistake apparent from record and is required to be rectified. e. Tax authorities must compute correct income of the assessee, even if the same is wrongly offered to tax by the Appellant in his return of income – The assessee had already offered the software receipts to tax and the tax authorities must compute the correct income to tax and thus, the tax authorities must consider the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis (supra)

The ld AR in support of each of the above contentions relied on various judicial precedence the copies of which are submitted as legal paper book and the same is taken on record. The ld. AR argued that the decision of the Co-ordinate 167/Mum/2023 arising out of ITA No. 1634/Mum/2021 dated 29.05.2024) which is confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court holding that subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be the reason for recalling the order under section 254(2) is not applicable in assessee's case. In this regard the ld AR submitted a table distinguishing the facts in ANI Integrated Services Ltd., (supra) with that of the assessee. The ld. AR further argued that in the said decision the reason quoted by the Co-ordinate Bench by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2022] 440 ITR 1 (SC) is that the powers under section 254(2) are there only to rectify any mistake apparent on record and that the subsequent decision of a higher forum by itself cannot be a ground for review. The ld. AR also argued that in assessee's case there is no review or revision by the AO since in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act the AO has accepted the impugned receipt as income of the assessee as declared in the return of income. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that assessee's case is clearly distinguishable. The ld. AR further submitted that in all the decisions relied on by the Co-ordinate Bench in ANI Integrated Services Ltd. (supra) the issue was review of orders passed by the Tribunal whereas in the present case the assessee is seeking to rectify a mistake which is arising as a result of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision and falls well within the purview of under section 154 as per the Circular and the various judicious precedents

The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee itself has offered the income to tax and has paid tax on the same for all the four AYs under consideration. The ld DR further submitted that though the assessee is aware of the issue pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, chose to offer the income to tax. The ld DR also submitted that the claim made by the assessee now stating that the income as not taxable is a fresh claim which cannot be entertained under section 154 and that the assessee should have filed the revised return of income under section 139(5). The ld AR argued that Circular No. 68 as relied on by the ld. AR is to correct a mistake that has occurred in any completed assessments and in assessee's case intimation under section 143(1) cannot be considered as an assessment. The ld DR further argued that the statutory provisions were sweepingly changed w.e.f. 01.04.1989 introducing the system of summary assessment (processing of returns) under section 143(1). Accordingly, the ld. DR submitted that the Circular is not applicable to assessee's case where the returns are processed under section 143(1) and even under the scrutiny assessment the impugned issue has not been examined. The ld. DR further submitted that the applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra) to the impugned receipts towards software licenses in assessee's case needs factual examination which is beyond the purview of section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. DR argued that the lower authorities have correctly rejected the claim of the assessee.

The ld. AR in counter arguments submitted that the Circular No. 68 is very much applicable for the reason that the Circular states that subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would constitute a "mistake apparent on record" which is the assessee's case. The ld. AR further brought to our attention that the CIT(A) in subsequent AYs has allowed the claim of the assessee that the software licenses as not taxable in India by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra) and therefore the claim that the impugned issue needs examination which is outside the purview of section 154 of the Act is not correct. The ld. AR prayed that in any case the issue may go back to the AO for limited purpose of examining the impugned receipts towards software licenses whether not taxable in India as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra).

We heard the parties and perused the material on record. During the year under consideration the assessee had certain receipts towards software licenses. The assessee in the return of income had offered the receipts to tax. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee subsequently filed a petition for rectification under section 154 of the Act, stating that there is a mistake apparent on record in offering the impugned receipts to tax, since the receipt is not taxable as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra). The AO rejected the rectification petition on under the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requires verification and assessing the case which is beyond the ambit of section 154. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal filed by the assessee on the same ground that the assessee's case is beyond the scope of section 154 of the Act. Therefore before proceeding further we will try to examine the relevant provisions of the Act and the law that has evolved with regard to the applicability of the section 154 – 154. 87[(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record 88 an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may,- (a) amend any order 88 passed by it under the provisions of this Act ; 89[(b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143;]] 90[(c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A;] 91[(d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.] 92[(1A) Where any matter 93 has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided.] (2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned- (a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee 94[or by the deductor] 95[or by the collector], and where the authority concerned is 96[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the 97[***] 98[Commissioner (Appeals)], by the 99[Assessing] Officer also. 1[***] (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment 2 or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee 3[or the deductor] 4[or the collector], shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee 3[or the deductor] 4[or the collector] of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee 3[or the deductor] 4[or the collector] a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. 5[(5) Where any such amendment has the effect of reducing the assessment or otherwise reducing the liability of the assessee or the deductor 6[or the collector], the deductor 6[or the collector].] (6) Where any such amendment has the effect of enhancing the assessment 7 or reducing a refund 8[already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee or the deductor 9[or the collector], the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee or the deductor 9[or the collector], as the case may be] a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable 10, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be issued under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 11 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years 12[from the end of the financial year in which the order 13 sought to be amended was passed.] 14[(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee 15[or by the deductor] 16[or by the collector] on or after the 1st day of June, 2001 to an income-tax authority referred to in sub-section (1), the authority shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it,- (a) making the amendment; or (b) refusing to allow the claim.]

From the plain reading of the above provisions it is clear that for applying the provisions of section 154 there should be a "(i) mistake, (ii) apparent and (iii) from the records". The "mistake" can be a mistake of law or a mistake of fact i.e. Mistakes that are typically simple, obvious errors like clerical or arithmetical mistakes or the misapplication of clear legal provisions, which can be corrected without debate or interpretation. It is a settled position that the mistakes arising from conscious decisions, deliberate interpretations, or logical reasoning will not fall within the scope of Section 154. For the mistake to be “apparent” it needs to be conspicuous, obvious or self-evident mistake and not something which can be established as a mistake by a long-drawn process of reasoning / examination. The plain meaning of the word "apparent" is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. The word "record" refers to the documents and information that the revenue is obligated to examine while addressing mistakes in orders. Section 154 does not provide for any restriction to the scope of authority's review and the authorities are empowered to examine the entire record, which may include all related documents and materials relevant to the rectification of the mistake. In other words the power to rectify the mistakes is not within the confines of the original order, but by considering all relevant materials within the record. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. (Appeal (civil) 5607 of 2007) dated 04.12.2007) on the issue of rectification mistake apparent on record under Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 are relevant in the context of the Act also – 10. A bare look at Section 22 of the Act makes it clear that a mistake apparent from the record is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of Section 22, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. "Mistake" means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error, a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. "Apparent" means visible; capable of being seen, obvious; plain. It means "open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming." A mistake which can be rectified under Section 22 is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. In our view rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. What the Revenue intends to do in the present case is precisely the substitution of the order which according to us is not permissible under the provisions of Section 22 and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in holding that there was mistake apparent on the face of the record. In order to bring an application under Section 22, the mistake must be "apparent" from the record. Section 22 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error. It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under Section 22 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. As observed by this Court in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. 11. "Mistake" is an ordinary word but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate is discerned. The word "mistake" is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under Section 22, it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word "apparent" is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications. 12. From the perusal of the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the following propositions arise – (i) The ‘mistake’ in the order sought to be rectified must exist and the same must be apparent from the record.

Accordingly for the purpose of adjudication, what we are required to examine in assessee's case whether the mistake has arisen in the AO's order in assessee's case consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra) i.e. taxing the impugned receipts towards software license in the hands of the assessee is an apparent mistake that can be decided without further investigation or collecting any fresh material. For this purpose it is important to understand the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra) with regard to taxability of receipts towards software licenses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the four types of transaction while rendering the decision – (i) Indian end-users purchase software from foreign suppliers (ii) Indian entities, as distributors/resellers, purchase software from foreign suppliers and resell to Indian end-users (iii) Foreign entities, as distributors/resellers, purchase software from foreign suppliers and resell to Indian distributors/ end-users (iv) Software affixed onto hardware and sold as integrated unit by foreign suppliers to Indian distributers/end-users 16. The summary of the principles laid down are – (i) Between the DTAA and the Act the provisions can only be applied to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee. (ii) Tax Deduction at Source under Section 195 of the Act can only be made if a nonresident is liable to pay tax under the charging provision in Section 9 read with Section 4 of the Act and the DTAA. (iii) As per amended Sections 14(b)(ii) and 52(1)(aa), making of copies or adaptation of a computer program in order to utilise the said computer program for the purpose for which it was supplied, or make back-up copies does not constitute infringement of Copyright and does not amount to parting with copyright. (iv) The right to reproduce would entail parting of copyright and whereas right to use does not entail any copyright. (v) The End User License Agreements (EULAs) have to be read as a whole to ascertain the true nature of a transaction to understand whether it is a sale of goods i.e. sale of a physical object which contains an embedded computer program (vi) Explanation 4 to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act cannot have retrospective application. 17. Based on the above principles the Hon'ble Supreme Court held all four categories as not taxable in India. Thus it is clear that in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles with regard to the taxability of the four categories of software licenses under the provisions of the Act as well as under the applicable DTAA. The assessee placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd (supra) where it is held that there is a mistake apparent on record in taxing the receipts towards software license as a result of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra). According to the ld AR the facts are identical to that of the assessee and therefore the lower authorities erred in rejecting the rectification petition of the assessee. On careful consideration of the facts pertaining to the said case, we notice that in the said case, the Authority for Advance Ruling originally held that the software receipts of the assessee were taxable in the hands of the said assessee and the assessee under protest included the said software receipts as income. The impugned decision of AAR ruling was subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra). Therefore the assessee sought the order of the lower authorities to be rectified based on the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in that regard applied clarification provided in the CBDT circular no.68. The Hon'ble High Court while considering the said plea held that "Hon'ble Apex Court has expressly overruled the order of Advance Rulings Authority in respect of the Citrix Systems i.e., petitioner and consequently, taxes paid by the petitioner under protest deserves to be refunded by rectifying the income tax returns filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order of Advance Rulings Authority". In other words, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically considered the issue pertaining to the assessee and has held the receipts towards software license as not taxable and accordingly the Hon'ble High Court directed the revenue to rectify the mistake. To this limited extend we agree with the argument of the ld. DR that facts in assessee’s case are distinguishable.

The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of IV. B.V.K. Seshavataram vs CIT [1995] 124 CTR 332 (Andhra Pradesh). On perusal of the said decision we notice that in the said case the assessee has made refund claim of tax on excess dividends under section 154 based on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khatau Makanji Spg. &Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 841. The said claim was not allowed by the revenue but the Hon'ble Bombay High Court directed the revenue to grant refund. By the time the assessee's case travelled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision in the case of Khatau Makanji Spg. &Wvg. Co. Ltd (supra) was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore in assessee's case it was held to be a mistake apparent on record. 19. A combined perusal of the above decision and also the other decision relied on by the assessee we notice that the basic premise for holding that the subsequent decision results in a mistake is that it is a rectifiable mistake which is apparent from the record that is self-evident and does not involve collecting any fresh records or complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. In other words for a mistake to be apparent on record falling within the purview of section 154 it need to be conspicuous, obvious or self-evident mistake and not something which can be established as a mistake by a long-drawn process of reasoning / examination. Accordingly in the present case, if the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. (supra) can be applied without any long drawn process of reasoning or analysis, or collecting fresh material then we will not have any hesitation to hold that there is a mistake apparent on record which needs to be rectified.

In this regard the ld AR brought to our attention the facts pertaining to subsequent AYs in assessee's case. The ld AR submitted that the assessee in subsequent AYs i.e. AY 2020-21 and 2021-22 has adopted the position that the identical receipts arising out of the same license agreements as not taxable. The ld AR further submitted that the AO did not accept the said position and the matter travelled to the CIT(A). The ld AR also submitted that CIT(A) after reviewing the detailed submissions of the assessee held that the receipts are not chargeable to tax as royalty under the India-USA DTAA by placing reliance on the decision in Engineering Analysis (supra). Our attention in this regard was drawn to the following observations of the CIT(A) in the order for AY 2021-22 dated 31.03.2024 – “Basis the above, given that the Apex Court’s decision in Engineering Analysis (supra) applies to the Appellant’s case, and further given that the Appellant is a tax India-USA DTAA, I hold the following:

From the above observations we notice that the CIT(A) has factually examined the nature software licenses and has applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra) to hold that it is not taxable in AY 2021-22. The claim of the assessee that the receipts towards software licenses for the years under consideration are part of the same license agreement and may not require any further investigation based on any new record needs to be established so that taxing the identical receipts in the years under consideration becomes a mistake apparent on record as a result of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra). We would also like to mention here that in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax is to be levied or collected except by the authority of law and it is trite law that true income is to be assessed so that there is no unjust enrichment.

In view of the above discussion and considering the facts we are remitting the appeals back to the CIT(A) for the limited purpose of understanding whether the facts pertaining to the impugned receipts are already examined as part of the records so that applying the decision in the case of Engineering Analysis (supra) would be within the purview of section 154 of the Act. Accordingly the CIT(A) is directed to allow the claim raised under section 154 as per Circular No.68 if the facts pertaining to the years under consideration are identical to AY 2021-22 which has already analysed and do not require any long drawn reasoning or analysis to arrive at a decision. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly.

The ld. DR during the course of hearing argued that the juri ictional High Court has upheld the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ANI Integrated Services Ltd. (supra) that no review u/s. 254(2) is permissible barred on subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly the ld. DR submitted that section 154 being similar, the said ratio should be applicable in the present case also. The ld. AR on the other hand presented a detailed table distinguishing the facts with assessee’s case. Considering that circular No. 68, clarified only with respect to section 154 that the subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a mistake apparent on record which is directly applicable to assessee’s case and the circular being binding with respect to rectification u/s. 154. We see merit in the submission the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is distinguishable.

In result the appeals for AY 2016-17 to AY 2019-20 are allowed for statistical purposes.